DALLAS - Yesterday, the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling denying the city of Fort Worth’s plea to the jurisdiction on Texas Whistleblower Act claims brought by Ronald Burke, a former city employee.
According to the Fifth Court’s opinion, Burke, the city’s former associate IT director, sued the city in 2019. In his amended petition, he asserted claims under both the TWA and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The city removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on Burke’s FMLA claims.
After the case was remanded, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction seeking dismissal of Burke’s TWA claim, which the trial court denied, leading to the appeal.
TWA, located in Chapter 554 of the Texas Labor Code, “provides a general remedy for retaliation based on the report of any violation of law” and “is a broad remedial measure intended to encourage disclosure of governmental malfeasance and corruption.”
In addition to Burke, at least two other former city employees also sued in separate, but somewhat related, employment actions, the opinion states.
The city argued three issues on appeal, one of which was that the trial court erred in denying its plea because Burke failed to satisfy the TWA’s statutory prerequisite to suit by actively circumventing the City’s grievance process.
The Fifth Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the city’s plea.
“Based on the record before us, we conclude the City did not establish as a matter of law that Burke failed to ‘initiate action under’ its grievance process as required by section 554.006(a),” the opinion states. “Even if we look solely at the City’s evidence, we believe a fact issue exists and that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could differ in their conclusions on the question of whether Burke ‘initiated action under’ the City’s grievance procedures.
“Even if we assumed the City met its initial burden and also considered Burke’s evidence, the fact issue is thrown into even sharper relief. Thus, we hold the trial court did not err in denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction on this issue.”
Case No. 05-22-00381-CV